Wikipedia

Talk:Obesity/Archive 5

< Talk:Obesity
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alteripse (talk | contribs) at 02:49, 1 November 2006 (Reverted edits by 202.134.32.90 (talk) to last version by 64.12.116.13). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 18 years ago by Jfdwolff in topic Vandalism Removed

POV

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You can tell this article is being edited by a lot of people who don't have the willpower to control their eating or stay in shape. To read it you would think everyone on Earth is a member of an aboriginal tribe standing around and worshipping a statue of Porky Pig's fat mom. Newsflash: Almost everyone thinks obesity is downright gross. You don't need a journal article to tell you this. Go outside and ask the first ten people that pass you on the street what they think about it. Even the tiny little paragraph that tackles the truth is written like an after-school special fatty apology. Just because you heard that a thousand years ago being fat was cool doesn't mean it still is today. Nor do tiny "non-Western" tribes deserve a greater level of emphasis than a country of nearly 300 million people. Places like America and Scotland are way fatter than the rest of the world, and very often reviled, by themselves and by others, because of it. This article is worse than Traditional Chinese Medicine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.16.201 (talk)

  • Heh. Yes, "obesity is downright gross" and "people who don't have the willpower" is definitely more NPOV than the current article! Chartreuse green 03:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The difference is I'm keeping my opinion to the discussion rather than going through and casting the article from an unnatural frame of reference; although, to be fair, changing the article to reflect my personal opinion would have the side effect of making it much more accurate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.16.201 (talk)
      • My apologies if this post is in the wrong place, but I thought I should point out that the introduction to the article on obesity has been locked with the words 'fat fuck' still in place. If someone with the access could change it, I think I wouldn't be the only grateful person.

Carnitine's Role in Obesity

Carnitine's Role in Obesity is now on Wikipedia.

RFC: Sorensen research

Latest comment: 19 years ago28 comments5 people in discussion

The reasons why I placed this in the introduction is because almost all current discussion regarding obesity is about this particular issue. That is to say, people are either attacking these sort of findings or they are advocating them. So it's quite reasonable to say that many people who type "Obesity" or "Overweight" into wikipedia, will be following up on the controversy and expecting to read the full story. Paul Campos' book has obviously been responsible for some of this, but New Scientist have also been covering the developments with interest. Hence, we need to have some mention of this discussion in the introduction for two reasons: the first is neutrality and the second is that it is relevant and of interest to readers of the article. Now, as to whether there is a more appropriate reference I could have used, well that is a fine-tuning issue, but in either case we must have mention of these developments in the introduction. --Brendanfox 10:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a new development, the significance of which is not yet fully understood. If there are further significant studies confirming this, we could consider it, but at the moment I disagree that it should receive the promimence that you gave it. That paper hasn't even appeared in print yet! JFW | T@lk 13:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't object to the placement of that particular finding further down in the article, but surely the controversy itself needs to have some prominence in the introduction? --Brendanfox 11:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Have you looked at the article? JFW | T@lk 12:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Brendan, I take exception with the way you are forcing that study into the article. Obesity is very heavily researched, and this is one study out of several 1000 a year on the subject. If it is meant to overthrow a paradigm, many more studies need to appear before I would even consider mentioning this "paradigm shift" in the intro. Weight reduction most decidedly has been shown decreased incidence of diabetes, and there's no escaping that. The controversy does NOT YET need to be mentioned in the introduction, which in most cases reflects the status quo. If you are unhappy feel free to request comments on this matter. JFW | T@lk 00:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

That's only if the paper is popular. If it's not such a "popular" ideaology, then people aren't going to pick it up and use it. Even scientists are only human and have a tendancy to shy away things they don't agree with. History is full of examples of new and different theories being ignored. Or rather, it isn't. - Kittie Rose
This is a highly relevant issue to the subject of Obesity; I am trying to introduce it in such a way that interested readers who have looked up this topic for more information can be presented with that information. It's a big exageration to say that this is a one out of a thousand study, in fact quite a number of studies have began to contradict the conventional wisdom, but regardless of this fact, this is the current issue when it comes to obesity, and it's just not good enough to have an encyclopedic article neglect to mention it. --Brendanfox 09:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Brendan, I don't dispute that the article is relevant. Information needs to be contextualised. Your insistence that dieting may shorten life expectancy comes out of the blue. There is not even mention that according to previous theories, weight loss would increase life expectancy. This encyclopedia article is not neglecting to mention it. There is just more to the article than the intro. I'm putting up an RFC for this, because we're unlikely to agree here. JFW | T@lk 12:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It's on RFC now[1]. JFW | T@lk 12:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, but I don't think we need to RfC at this stage. What I'm trying to do is to more clearly state or provide an example that illustrates the contentious nature of this topic, at least in terms of some of the scientific research. As I've said from the beginning, I don't mind which particular study we use, or even if it is more broadly stated, but the fact that this is not just black and white should be conveyed in the introduction. At the moment, saying the "benefits are uncertain" fails to convey the extent of the controversy, so here's what I'll do. I'll rewrite the introduction without mentioning the Sorensen research. It'd be more productive if instead of just reverting, you tried to rewrite it, or improve on it, if there are any problems. Thanks. --Brendanfox 01:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I have indeed tried to rewrite it, and you were not happy. It's becoming increasingly more obvious we do indeed need an RFC here, because you are completely ignoring my points. I think "benefits are uncertain" covers it perfectly, and alluding so extensively to fairly new studies completely neglects the fact that most researchers have not yet accepted the conclusions of the research you are so interested in. I will not revert, but I'm sure you are putting way too much emphasis on something that hasn't crystallised yet. JFW | T@lk 02:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

In response to the RFC, I took a look. Brendanfox, your version is bizarre and unsupportable. There are many studies showing many medical problems arising from obesity. You are suggesting we give prominence to one equivocal study that shows that fat folks who intend to diet are slightly more likely to die over the next couple of decades than fat folks who don't? Even the authors do not make claims as bold as yours. Please tell us why you think this one study is worth more than a brief citation as an atypical finding of currently uncertain significance?

At the end of the Sorenson study, there is a good concise lay summary that refrains from overstating the findings in the way you have been doing. I quote: 'Background: Although it seems obvious that when overweight people lose weight their health should improve, previous work has suggested that the relationship between weight loss and health may not be as simple as that. For example, it is difficult to control for all other possible things that might cause weight loss, such as other medical conditions that could then increase mortality. What Did the Researchers Do? They started with a population of 19,993 Finnish twins who were asked in 1975 about their weight and whether they intended to lose weight. In 1981, they were asked again about their weight, and then followed for up to 18 years to see if any died. The researchers took out of the analyses all the people who had illnesses, or those who had data missing. They analysed mortality against intention to lose weight in 1975 and actual change in weight. They found that those people who intended to lose weight and who actually did so had a slightly higher mortality than those who gained weight or whose weight remained the same. In people who did not intend to lose weight, gaining weight was associated with a slightly higher mortality. What Do These Results Mean? In the people studied here who were otherwise healthy and only moderately overweight, losing weight seemed to be associated with higher mortality. What makes these results quite difficult to interpret is that the actual number of people who died was not very high, but nonetheless intentional weight loss did not improve mortality. One reason for this result may be that when people diet to lose weight, they lose fat-free tissue as well as fat. In people who have medical conditions related to obesity, losing weight is obviously desirable. But overall, preventing people, especially children, from becoming overweight in the first place seems crucial, since this work suggests that once weight is gained losing it again may not be good for health.

I agree that the topic deserves mention and I appreciate your link. This warrants at most a couple sentence synopsis in a section on Unsolved problems and controversies related to obesity, but certainly doesnt warrant your "many studies" sentence in the intro paragraph. alteripse 02:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Have you guys actually read any of the discussion above? From the first post, I've explained I'm not asking for the Sorensen research to be in the introduction. The Sorensen research was picked arbitrarily, only as an example and was only used in my original contribution. Alteripse has just reverted a paragraph which made no mention of the the Sorensen research! I'm asking that the undeniable controversy that has resulted in the last 12 months be covered, due to its notability and for neutrality. Please, if you're going to make comment and revert, be clear on what we're actually arguing about. --Brendanfox 03:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright, let me address it directly. This is the intro paragraph with your insertion: Excessive body weight has been shown to predispose to various forms of disease, particularly cardiovascular disease. Recently however, the scientific definition used to describe the condition has faced strong criticism, with the publication of several controversial studies. For example, whilst it was traditionally accepted that overweight people must have reduced lifespans, many studies are actually showing increased lifespans for overweight people. Interventions, such as weight loss and medication, are frequently recommended to reduce the risk of developing disease, although in some cases their exact benefits are questionable, with many people undertaking weight loss regimens for aesthetic reasons.

You mischaracterize the nature and significance of the studies you cite.

  1. The "scientific definition" of obesity is not in any sense facing "strong" scientific "criticism".
  2. The studies do not challenge the definition of obesity: at most they challenge the value of certain responses to certain conditions of obesity.
  3. Contrary to your assertion there are many studies showing increased mortality associated with excess weight-- it is not simply "tradition".
  4. And no data suggests, and no knowledgeable professional believes, "that overweight people must (sic) have reduced lifespans". A statistical association should not be described as a "must".
  5. Contrary to your assertion, I don't know of any convincing study showing that a group of obese persons has a longer average life expectancy than a well-matched similar group of average wt persons.
  6. The last sentence is muddled and awkward. It might be better expressed as "Interventions such as dieting and medications to induce weight loss are frequently recommended to reduce the risk of developing complications of obesity, though significant weight loss is often not achieved or maintained for long, and though evidence of health benefit for these practices is mixed. A large proportion of people attempting to lose weight are doing so for body appearance and social reasons."

Please remember that an encyclopedia is indeed a repository of "conventional wisdom", and this needs to be clearly and accurately expressed before we provide details of current controversies, which in the scale of nearly a century of obesity research are still a tiny uncertain blip, no matter how strongly some people are promoting them. I am not going to simply revert you because I am assuming you are reasonable enough to understand these critcisims and will modify the unsupportable, misleading and clumsy sentences. Please. alteripse 04:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Alteripse, I really appreciate the time you've taken to list your concerns. I'll try and address them one by one, hopefully we can all lay off the reverts for a while. --Brendanfox 05:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Brendan says in an edit summary this new version makes no mention of Sorensen. Well, I moved the reference down to the therapy section. The new version of the intro may not refer to Sorensen, but it is original research clear and simple. JFW | T@lk 05:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

A new version of the intro by Brendan. More of the same, just stressing that weight loss is "traditionally" recommended. There is still no support for the bizarre assertion that being overweight increases lifespan. Until you can support this with credible evidence you will keep on getting reverted. You have already agreed that it's not about Sorensen, because that study is now mentioned in the #therapy section. What on earth are you trying to achieve? Perhaps declaring your POV will bring us closer to a solution. JFW | T@lk 05:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

JFW, one cite for that 'bizzare assertion' I've made is:
Excess Deaths Associated With Underweight, Overweight, and Obesity, Katherine M. Flegal, PhD; Barry I. Graubard, PhD; David F. Williamson, PhD; Mitchell H. Gail, MD, PhD, JAMA. 2005;293:1861-1867.
I actually think my POV is much the same as yours, there's not enough evidence to draw any strong conclusion at this stage, it's just that I believe the confusion / controversy should be clearly conveyed to the readers of the article, and you believe we should pretend everything's fine until we are absolutely certain that it isn't. --Brendanfox 06:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm very intrigued by the new research indicating that obesity may not decrease lifespan. I have always been interested in cases where conventional scientific wisdom turns out to be dead wrong. (e.g. Peptic ulcers). It seems pretty clear, though, that this research does not belong in the article's introduction. More time is needed to reach scientific consensus on this issue, or at least for the debate in the scientific community to develop more fully.--Srleffler 06:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, in fact, I think we all agree that this research should not be stated as fact. But as part of running an upto-date, relevant encyclopedia, can't we at least convey the fact that there is controversy, that there is a debate? Over the last three-four attempts I've made at getting this into the introduction I've tried to illustrate the controversy by mentioning various studies that are questioning conventional wisdom, but I'm certainly not stating the results/conclusions as fact, they are only there to show that it's something that is contentious and more research is needed. --Brendanfox 06:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Brendan, have you actually read the Flegal et al study? (PMID 15840860). One of the key messages, elaborated clearly in the abstract, is that while overweight (BMI between 25 and 30) is not associated with increased mortality, obesity accounted for >100,000 excess deaths in the USA in 2000. I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to do, and I will not report your fourth revert in 24 hours on WP:AN/3RR for the sake of peace, but I think you should let this matter rest. JFW | T@lk 07:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks JFW, but you are aware that Overweight redirects to this article? My contribution stated that "recent studies have shown increased lifespans for overweight people", which is exactly what that study found. The study compared how many underweight, overweight and obese people in the US died in 2000 compared with those for a normal BMI. The results were 33,746 excess underweight deaths, 111,909 excess obese, but 86,094 less deaths than normal in the overweight category. --Brendanfox 08:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

But again you are contrasting the findings of one admittedly good study with several others. The Flegal study points out that several studies found an increase in the "overweight" category (refs 32-34) while others found no increased but no decrease either (refs 35-57,39). To suddenly insist in basing a statement in the intro of this article on the Flegal results is, again, mangling the data.

I am not principally opposed to starting a seperate page on overweight; let me know if you do. But please leave the intro like it is now.

The Flegal study is actually quite a good resource, and could replace the Mokdad reference we have at the moment, which was the subject of controversy. JFW | T@lk 09:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

A new article on overweight could be an idea. Strangely enough, the current introduction is even more firmly behind the conventional wisdom, then before I started contributing. Here's another study you might be interested in JFW:
Body mass index and mortality: a meta-analysis based on person-level data from twenty-six observational studies McGee DL Annals of Epidemiology- 2005 2 (Vol. 15, Issue 2)
I still believe we can reach a compromise on this point, how about the addition of: "However, the overall health consequences of excess weight are not entirely understood - recent scientific evidence has contradicted conventional medical opinion - and so the subject remains an area of active research and discussion." --Brendanfox 10:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The health consequences of excess weight are very well understood. It is the definition of "excess weight" that needs revision. There are men with a BMI of 24 but severe central obesity (to the point of lipodystrophy) who develop diabetes mellitus. Elderly ladies get osteoarthritis for numerous reasons, but excess body weight is a significant risk factor. Chubby blokes get obstructive sleep apnea syndrome.

I had a look at the abstract of the McGee study (sorry, my hospital does not have fulltext on Ann Epidemiol). It concludes again that obesity is associated with increased mortality, and supports the Flegel study and several others that "overweight" is a statistical but not a pathological phenomenon.

I strongly disagree with your proposed new intro. As I said, the health consequences of excess weight are very well understood. The BMI paragraph states correctly that ranges of "normalcy" are being redefined on a frequent basis, and with the evidence above in hand I suspect the professional organisations will soon agree that treating obesity (and not overweight) should be a priority. JFW | T@lk 10:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Is this any better? "However, the overall health consequences of excess weight are not entirely clear - recent scientific evidence has cast some doubt over conventional medical opinion - and so the subject remains an area of active research and discussion." --Brendanfox 10:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It misses the basic point that we know full well that excessive weight (say BMI>30 or BMI>35) has very clear known consequences. Your line would be perfect in the intro of overweight, still to be written. Conventional medical opinion is not challenged at all by "recent scientific evidence", not more than by any other clinical trials with surprising outcomes. It is overly sensationalist. Not every scientific field undergoes a massive paradigm shift every 2.5 weeks. JFW | T@lk 12:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, well putting that aside, we either need to create a new article for overweight, or modify the introduction so that its clear what the difference is. I know its covered a bit further down, under BMI, but with many terms redirrecting to a single article, they really should be defined early on. That said, I'm leaning towards creating a new article for overweight. For one, I don't know of any scientific literature questioning BMI's more than 30, so we could make the distinction clearer. --Brendanfox 02:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

microclimates

Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Because obesity can result from fluid retention and from compression within environs having limited space, such as peninsula or regions having some historical significance, an introduction skewed toward food-intake management will not address other vital obesity concerns and may instead contribute to the number of unnecessary surgeries demanded and scheduled. 12/6/2005 22:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC) beadtot

Sorry, obesity does not result from fluid retention. Water is water; fat is fat. And I have no idea what you mean by "obesity can result... from compression within environs having limited space" but I suspect it is a sillier concept than the fluid retention. Thanks for not adding either to the article. alteripse 23:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually we are not talking about fat, we are talking about size and girth -- fluid retention within body cavities can also be termed as a type of 'edema' resulting from compression, say, in the company of athletes or 'Type A' professional businesspeople. The best and most effective remedy for such stress upon the natural bodily state is, paradoxically so it seems, well-nourished and safe sleep.

The post-pregnancy state is often ajudged to be 'obese' when a woman choses to retain amniotic fluid in the abdominal region as a hedge against infectious disease -- no amount of persuasion can force her to go to the gymnasium or join a marathon race to lose it. As well, adult people among youngsters maintain some padding when close quarters are continuous so as to cushion interpersonal encounters. 22:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC) 12/17/2005 beadtot

Can you give us some references for what sounds like fantasy physiology to me? Are you suggesting we should just tell "fat" people to stop "choosing" to retain fluid? Have you noticed that the rate of obesity rises when children have their own rooms and the family has larger living quarters?alteripse 23:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
It's raving pseudoscience, or a hoax. JFW | T@lk 23:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I was trying to be kind. alteripse 01:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I opened my mind briefly, but then discovered all other serious thought already present protested and threatened to leave. JFW | T@lk 01:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I've never seen these other, real points of view presented within literature of any kind -- therefore, the opportunity to present them within RFC is laudable. Paradoxically, as stated, eating nutritious meals and sleeping will cause weight loss as a result. 04:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC) 12/19/2005 beadtot

Remember Me? =)

Latest comment: 19 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Guys

Well done on finally cracking down on removing the vandalism from this article. I will explain my rather weird actions of previous months now, so I will be forgiven and my real picture be posted up (If you want confirmation, let me know and I'll webcam with you). I was at the point where I wanted to help the wiki as much as I could, so I helped this article with a picture that wasn't me. I put the wrong liscening on it and should have explained my actions, but I was stupid and didn't. I apologise the confusion and general weirdness I caused, but I actually have a proper picture now and I am willing for it to be used on this page. It can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Boochan.png. I will put it up soon if you wish, Just asking to be forgiven for the crap I caused and to still help. - Boochan 13:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Why should we believe you this time, Boochan? And we already have a great picture of a user with genuine obesity who has not stuffed several pillows under his shirt. JFW | T@lk 15:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I've Chilled - Sorry =) - However I am still leaving the fact that its a genuine picture, but will be deleted anyway (on my own request) so there is no point in arguing. - Boochan 15:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Chill, man. I'm glad you've apologised but we have no need for your picture. Really. JFW | T@lk 16:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No Problem - Could you have just said that politely instead of making false accusations next time please? No need is fine, if that was explained rather then it hidden in annoyance motivated drivel (understandable, believe me) first, then I would have accepted it and not posted a few lines of rant :) - Don't take it the wrong way or anything, but being accused of a fake even with the first reputation is not so good, because I'm not a nusiance user. - Boochan 16:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No, you're not. We've just had too much trolling about the images here. At the moment what we need is a schematic drawing to explain the difference between visceral fat (located around the abdominal organs) and subcutaneous fat. According to research, the former produces a set of adipokines (call them "fat hormones" if you like) that accellerate atherosclerosis through a form of low-grade inflammation. This is of significant importance to the article, and needs to be fleshed out.
As for featured article status, this is still miles away, especially as we need more from the social science angle to make it truly comprehensive. JFW | T@lk 19:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Good to hear that you understand correctly. - Boochan 04:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Here we go again, and again, and again, and again....

Latest comment: 19 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Ok. For the umpteenth time -- will someone P-L-E-A-S-E tell me why this article is being vandalized on a regular basis? Jason Palpatine 20:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Because obesity is big. Honestly. People are interested and concerned. Teenagers have a strong bias towards obesity. They click fat, then learn this is about triglycerides and fatty acids, then come here, leave their turd, and go. Go look at the G.W. Bush article. It is vandalised every few minutes. Tough. Shame. That's part of Wikipedia. It is likely to improve if anonymous users are disallowed from editing, something that has been debated on and off for the last 2 years. JFW | T@lk 23:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I never thought I would see you show as much exasperation as I do sometimes. It's probably healthy. alteripse 23:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, there's this that might help— Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy. It's still being debated on that articles talk page too, if you want to chime in and/or make suggestions. —Locke Cole 23:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Is your real name Kenneth by any chance?[2] JFW | T@lk 23:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No it's not, though my parents did consider it alomg with Benjamin. Have a nice day friend. -- Jason Palpatine 18:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yet againthe vandals have struck. Sheeshhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! -- Jason Palpatine 23:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Live with it, mate. JFW | T@lk 17:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you Astrailian? I'd rather kill it, mate. Jason Palpatine 18:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it's popular in London as well. JFW | T@lk 21:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Obesity vs. Overweight?

Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I just noticed that "overweight" redirects to this article on obesity, but the two terms do not really indicate the same condition, and this article doesn't appear to actually discuss "overweight" at all. Should "overweight" be given its own article? If not, at the very least I think it should be made clear here that "overweight" and "obese" do not mean the same thing.. Anybody else have any thoughts on this subject? -- Foogod 22:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

See my discussion with Brendan above. Overweight and obesity are part of a spectrum. Some overweight people are centrally obese, yet have a BMI under 30. JFW | T@lk 22:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, ok, now I see your comments above (I missed that earlier because it was under a subject heading which didn't seem to apply).. I should point out in response to your comment here, however, that my point had nothing to do with who's considered overweight vs. obese or the health implications thereof (and has nothing to do with BMI). My point is just that from a technical, clinical standpoint these terms are have fairly well defined meanings and do not actually mean the same thing, and the current Wikipedia organization implies that they are the same, which should be corrected. It sounds like there may be some consensus here that we should create a new article for "overweight".. maybe I'll look into doing that if I find the time soon.. -- Foogod 19:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

There should be an overweight article regarding the stock market term (i.e. overweight, underweight, equal weight) versus an automatic redirection to an article on obesity. --Rmoss78 20:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Foogod, this article explains the term overweight. This is normal Wikipedia functioning - if an article does not exist it is acceptable to (temporarily) redirect it to a page that provides more information. I do support a page on overweight, but it will provide little information and should more take the form of a sub-page of obesity. The studies Brendanfox was suggesting above could well serve as useful sources for an overweight page. Rmoss78 can then split off overweight (stock market), which is an uncommon use of the term (as per Wikipedia:Disambiguation). JFW | T@lk 20:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've created a new article for Overweight, based on references found here and various other information I've collected. Please take a look and tell me what you think. -- Foogod 00:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

VANDALISM

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Willy on Wheels was here! --PublicUserAccount 15:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

No vandalism please. --82.42.237.114 15:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

What's the point? --Bulgarian Ben 18:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed with you, Ben. This is stupid! --Sunseeking Jay 18:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The point, of course, is too keep the page from being vandalized. And it seems to be working. --Angr (t·c) 18:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Not too well! The infamous North Carolina vandal keeps hitting up on this page. 68.39.174.238 00:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Well it was working while it was protected! Trouble is, WP policy won't let me keep it semi-protected permanently. Pity. --Angr (t·c) 07:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
One week is not permanent, why not try semi-protecting this article for one week and see what happens? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This article has yet again been vandalized

It looks as if somone had the immature notion to vandalize the beginning of this article. Seeing that there has been a history of this from reading the talk page, I recomend that these actions be rectified.

naked man

Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

its really unneccessary-- not to mention gross. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Froth (talk • contribs) 22:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like it, don't look at it. --Angr (tɔk) 09:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. None of his private parts are revealed. This is what an obese human being looks like. Weither or not one finds it "gross" or something else has no relevancy to the fact its an effective picture of an overweight person. I'm sure many don't like looking at what a Penis looks like but that shouldn't stop its wiki article from having a picture of it for strictly informative reasons. Man...I don't get all this attitude towards this picture. Its just a fat guy, whats so disturbing about that?--Kiyosuki 19:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


I deleted the nude man photo. That is indecent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.126.76.102 (talk)

Wikipedia is not censored for content. The picture is relevant to the content, and I have restored it. Please do not remove information from the articles without prior discussion.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 13:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
not because it looks indecent-- but because more appropriate visuals exist-- should the article use a different picture. don't make this a stand against censorship. when obesity comes to mind, i think of fat people, not fat nude people saturated with light, wearing weird glasses, picnicking. the picture, on a whole, is not very good.68.222.12.248 02:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

To be hinest, I don't think the man actually WAS nude -- nothing was showing because his fat was covering his bathing-suit. -- Jason Palpatine 05:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This was discussed in the archives. When the picture was there he actually was if someone was sad enough to grab the picture and zoom in, but then it was replaced with a censored version before it was volnterrily taken off. - Boochan 10:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think the page should be protected. Someone really has it out for that picture. I decided to change pictures of ANGR to another one (from the Fat page) in order to hopefully decrease the vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.126.76.14 (talk)

Even if ANGR's picture wasn't there, there'd still be plenty of vandalism. That is not where the only bit of vandalism occurs. Personally I would leave it up. It's a distractor to some people who could end up doing more widespread harm.

Will someone please explain to me -- as if I were a 6 year old -- why a day doesn't go by without someone VANDALIZING this article?! -- Jason Palpatine 05:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Jason, you are now six years old, and you must have seen those ugly drawings on the subway trains and blind walls in bad neighborhoods. Most of them are no more than a person's name or signature. Sad people do this, Jason. They try to make a name for themselves by defacing other's hard work. It is not dissimilar to dogs leaving an odor mark at the bottom of all the trees they encounter.
Obesity is a very fashionable subject, and being fat is not very popular. Combine this with the appeal of defacing others' property, and you get a volatile situation. Have a look at how often George W. Bush is being vandalised. JFW | T@lk 15:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Apologies

Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I would like to apologize for abuses coming here from Loyola College. They are coming from a computer lab located in one of the dorms. The problem was discovered when half of the computers were blocked and couldn't edit. We're working on a policy to stop the vandalism of this fine site.

Ah that explains a lot of it. Only college students could be so overly sensitive and repressed. :D (I'm one myself.)--Kiyosuki 17:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Or they could just be ########. :P--KrossTalk 00:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Now now..--Kiyosuki 22:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I would ignore Kross. He's just a jerk. Read my talk page. User Talk: 144.126.161.43 144.126.161.43 15:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Boys, none of this is relevant to obesity. Go to 144.126.161.43's talk page. JFW | T@lk 15:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
What do I do to report him? That's all I ask. By the way, if you want to leave a message please do so on 144.126.161.43's talk page. I generally have most of my access to that computer.144.126.76.73 02:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Pigs

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Does the reference to pigs really have to be in the intro? Although the pig reference may be an "objective" statement, it's derisive. Would anybody allow this to be edited out or changed to another farm animal?

Well I can see how it could be a bit...harsh. I've wondered the same thing myself but always thought to myself that it wasn't a huge deal to really give consideration. But if it is...well I have no problem really. What about a picture of Homer Simpson? He may not be a particularly great man in the show, but he's almost universally known, and his weight is the subject of humor as well as satire in the Simpsons but at the same time he has good qualities as well as famous qualities that make him not so much of a one dimensional portrayal. I could change it...but only if a few others really agree. Aside from just the implication that an anthromorphic pig may leave, changing it like this could have some positive use on the wiki as a character like Homer or something equivalent is much more relatable since so many are familiar with the character and his qualities, where as I can't really remember where the current character comes from and he(she?) seems like such a bland example.--Kiyosuki 06:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this in reference to the PIGS IS PIGS picture I posted in the POPULAR CULTURE section? -- Jason Palpatine 05:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC) I added a pic of Jabba the Hutt instead.Ollie the Magic Skater 20:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC) I thought that was a good example...Ollie the Magic Skater 20:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I am guessing its the following text: "Obesity is relatively rare, but it is common in domestic animals like pigs and household pets who may be overfed and underexercised." - I doubt its the cartoon picture. - Boochan 10:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Bias

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I dislike how this page attacks FAs. It says more militant but doesn't acknowledge the existence of less militant ones. Nobody is denying it's healthier not to be very obese. That doesn't mean people shouldn't get the support and appreciation they need.

{{Sofixit}}. JFW | T@lk 22:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
If there is any truth to this assertion, you have my support. I can't stand intollerance.

Could you spotight one or two of the sections you are refering to? It would help not having to read the entir text to find/see what it is.

And I happen to be an FA myself -_- Jason Palpatine 00:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Todo list

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Someone started a todo list. The first item for discussion is AD-36. This has actually been discussed before, and it was my view that this information did not require mention in this article, given that the whole AD-36 thing is the work of one group and has received minimal attention in the scientific community. See here for my wanderings into this subject. JFW | T@lk 22:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi JFW - As far as I recall, Morbid Obesity is generally regarded as 40 and over, or being over 100lb over the persons ideal weight. The Amount between 35-40 seems to be occasionally called "Severe Obesity". Hope this helps.. though some medical proof would be useful. I am also thinking that various difference countries may recognise the BMI for Morbid Obesity as different, as for example some countries still consider a healthy weight BMI from 23-28, rather then the recent change to reduce it down to 25..- Boochan 09:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

African vs African-American

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I notice these two are listed as different groups under those recommended for increased BMI limits. Why is this? What are the genetic differences between the two?

I guess I'll collapse them into just 'African' if noone has any objections? Robthebob 00:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Wtf? Kids are dying of hunger in Africa! Cuzandor 22:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Bariatrics and obesity surgery

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article bariatrics currently seems to be primarily about obesity surgery, which is a different article. I have proposed that the two be merged. Please discuss at Talk:Bariatrics. Angr/talk 07:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think combining them is a good idea. Obesity surgery, namely gastric bypass dominates the bariatric discussion.

Major Thanks

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for having a solid replacement to the fat nude man. OsFan 13:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This page is in such a vandalised state, plus it makes it all the less centered on one of our mods. Thanx for finding a good replacement. - Boochan 03:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

needs a good pic

Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

a good photograph of an obese person would be very helpful for this article. i understand why the last one was removed, but i imagine that there are a bunch of noncopywritten photos of fat people out there. Joeyramoney 20:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a feeling that whatever photo is going to be up there that someone will be unhappy with it.OsFan 22:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
why? obesity is not subjective. Joeyramoney 00:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
People had problems with ANGR's photo because he was nude. You have issues with that photo for reasons you have not specified. My bet is that there's always going to be dissent over how a fat person should be shown. OsFan 20:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
there is no photo, that's what bothers me. the painting is functional, but it isn't a photograph. it just seems out of place not to have one. and no, people will not have a problem with any picture put up, and it actually surprised me how long the previous one remained. once i can find one, i'll add it myself. Joeyramoney 23:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I would put my picture up, but I might change my mind and take it off, which has made people a bit ticked off before. I would put mine up on the condition that I can take it off. - Boochan 09:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC) If you want an example of my picture, ask me for the link.

Recent edit

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This was an edit done recently to the article/image. I was unsure wheather this was or was not intended to be an act of vandalism. Would the person responible please explain the meaning of their edit here? -- Jason Palpatine 21:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course its vandalism... -_- - Boochan 09:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, with all the vandalism that was/will be done to this artice, maybe we should set up a seperate article for listing all the vandalisms done to it. Some of them have been opretty creative. -_- Jason Palpatine 00:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


The future of this article

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Last week I made a number of substantial edits to this article. It is still my objective to work it up to featured status, given the immense (no pun intended) public interest in the problem of excess weight and its cultural, social, political and obviously medical repercussions.

We need a bit of an agenda as to how we're going to proceed here. I've summarised the diagnostic and therapeutic principles of obesity (although perhaps there could be some tightening in the diagnostic area), and I've cited the very comprehensive Jeffrey Flier paper that summarises the state of affairs in the "obesity wars".

Some sections are still in need of help:

  • Epidemiology and worldwide distribution of obesity (the number of malnourished and obese people apparently is about equal on a global scale)
  • Estimated medical and social cost of obesity (we only have the Mokdad reference that was subsequently discredited)
  • "Societal causes" is mostly unreferenced and could do with WP:CITE injection
  • The "AMA list of complications" has no reference (and is potentially endless; for example: thrombosis is not mentioned)
  • "Controversies" presently mentions a few lone voices. A "bird's eye view" of the various POVs would be more helpful than a list of names (Campos says this, Critser says that).
  • The UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has recently issued guidelines for the medical and surgical management of obesity. The Royal College of Physicians likewise has been working on informing the profession on the epidemic of obesity facing the Western world.

I'd love to hear some more opinions on what this article needs to include. For example, I'm against the inclusion of AD36, an adenovirus intensely studied by one research group that was previously mentioned in the article but somehow did not seem to improve its credibility.

I would suggest splitting this article into two separate articles. One on the indiviudal medical and clinical aspects of obesity. Another on obesity as a public health and policy problem. Both areas are vast and require substantial work. Pelican 18:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Are any of you aware of useful social science, psychology and politicology perspectives that could be included here? JFW | T@lk 17:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


Social epidemiology is widely used in public health approaches to the problem. Also, there is a lot of work in behavioral economics on obesity control policy. Pelican 18:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Obesity and the law

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Instead of our present ponderous content perhaps we can get some more factual information from this source: Obesity — The New Frontier of Public Health Law. JFW | T@lk 07:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I know this source. There are a few errors and the legal analysis is spotty. I can suggest other sources. Pelican 18:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Center for Consumer Freedom

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I want to suggest that references to the Center for Consumer Freedom or its use as a source be flagged or marked for concern and/or removed. Center for Consumer Freedom is a front organization for the food, beverage and restaurant industries. It began as the Guest Choice Network and was funded entirely by tobacco companies. Pelican 18:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Version 0.5

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article has failed review for Version 0.5. It has a clean-up tag, and the writing and structure are not appropriate for a general audience.

For example:

  • The first sentence ("Obesity is a condition in which the natural energy reserve, stored in the fatty tissue of humans and mammals is increased to a point where it is thought to be a significant risk factor in certain health conditions, leading to increased mortality.") might be more simply written along the lines of: "Obesity is an overabundance of fat."
  • The "Definition" section, as now written, is too technical for the beginning. Maurreen 06:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Black males have higher intra-abdominal fat risk.

Controversies Section

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have removed the sections "Medicalization of obesity", "Health effects of obesity", and "Medical Responses to obesity". The first two are not controversies save Paul Campos' work. His position and this position is not published in the peer reviewed literature and is generally not accepted. The section "Health Effects of Obesity" is unclear. "Medical Responses to Obesity" belongs under "Treatment" and is redundant. Pelican 17:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Public Health and Policy

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I have also renamed this section to indicate the policy and public health dimensions of the obesity epidemic. This entire section, along with much of this article, requires citation and explanation. Also, the obesity/overweight prevalence numbers are not in dispute. Pelican 18:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This section lists the previous "societal causes" of obesity. There are no citations for this material yet. Pelican 20:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"How Cameron Lost His Gut"

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the "Environmental Causes of Obesity" section, under "Lack of activity", I'm removing everything after the word "also". It appears to be vandalism; there is no such story as "How Cameron Lost His Gut", so far as I can determine, and the citation (22) used doesn't correspond to that at all. It seems to be related to the first part of the entry, though, so I'm assuming they used to go together and I'm leaving it. --Defordj 21:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What's going on

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I last edited this page in May, and sorta lost track of it. Comparing the versions now, there are some good improvements but a few points I'd like to bring up:

  • Silly tags about references and cleanup. This article has more references and is tidyer that many articles on similar topics and of equal length. These tags should not take the place of a gentle note on the talkpage.
  • Much material was deleted despite being of good quality (e.g. specialist measurement systems - don't delete it, source it!) I have reinstated this.
  • Many sources are still nonspecific webpages, especially those cited in inline URLs (rather than cite.php references). All these URLs should ideally be replaced with more elaborate citations so the reader can guess their authoratitiveness (is that a word?) from the reference. John Doe's website is not the WHO/CDC/NIH website, or what?
  • Pihp (talk · contribs) kindly added some really useful sources, but probably was unaware that cite.php allows multiple instances of one cite. I've fixed this.

As I've stated, this topic attracts immense public attention, and the article needs to be one of Wikipedia's best. I'm gonna start watching it again, and have asked Pihp to comment here. JFW | T@lk 11:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I tried to mark in the talk page some of the major changes I made, e.g. deletion of specialist measurement systems. Specialist measurement systems, for example, seem technical and are implied by the three diagnostic tools mentioned. I also removed etymology as it seemed irrelevant. I was going to work on the public health and obesity section as that is more my area of expertise. I do think the page might be well served by splitting this article into two or more separate articles. Pelican (PIHP) 01:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

In the subject of cultural and social significance isnt there a slight NPOV? The section feels like Obesity was valued in acnient times and in modern times it is somewhat less attractive because "thinness" is cosidered somewhat better. when the reality is that while it may ahve been good looking ages ago obese people are ridculed, shunned and looked down upon by most of the non obese world in modern times?


______________________________________

Second this. There's a big paragraph about thinness as a modern, Western body preference and how this preference is being exported as part of the process of globalization. No citations, no research, all speculation.

My impression

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

In some ways I like this article. For instance, it's balanced in presentation and ambitious in scope.

BUT.

It seems to suffer fatally from being written by people who are uncomfortable with the science. It is heavy on the conceptually simple topics which most readers will already be aware of, while shying away from the more current understanding of the physiology which they probably do not know and which it should be the job of this article to elucidate. I get the feeling that most writers have avoided dealing with the basic science as beyond them, relegating it to a poorly worded few paragraphs and encouragement to go read the Flier article.

To me the article reads as unbalanced as a diabetes article that spends pages on epidemiology but only a passing reference to glucose metabolism or the pancreas. By the end the reader may be sure that diabetes is bad - but do they really know what it is?

I know the science has exploded in only the last decade and by now it is quite difficult to master. But ultimately obesity *is* a neuroendocrine problem - and a complex one, so the neuroendocrinology should be at the center of the article, not a footnote.

This may take time to research and present clearly and accurately, but until that's done, I'm not sure what the article is really worth. Kately 07:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been only very superficial in citing the Flier review. There are very many studies coming out on a regular basis, but this area of medicine presently lacks a unifying hypothesis.
You are of course warmly invited to expand on the pathophysiology, provided that it is accessible to the general readership and adequately sourced. I'm happy to help if you provide some pointers that you think should be covered.
I disagree with your assessment of the diabetes article. Of necessity, it cannot list the 100s of relevant pathophysiological details. It provides a general picture, which is then elaborated on in the subarticles about type 1 and type 2. JFW | T@lk 20:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I would like to suggest again that this article be split into two. The clinical and medical dimensions of obesity/overweight are related but distinct from obesity as a public health problem where issues of clinical assessment are secondary to the use of BMI as a epidemiologial measure in a population. Obesity is a clinical problem and a public health problem. The two are related but distinct. Perhaps separating the article into two articles or parts will eliminate some of the confusion. pihp 20:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sprotected - again

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Too much vandalism. JFW | T@lk 20:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Environmental Factors

article mentions all reasons from "cheap gas" (which is bunk), to portion sizes increasing, to desk jobs, but what about one key thing? "Fatty foods invariable taste 100% better to most people than fruits and vegetables! healthy foods have no taste.

Viral causes

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I see that discussion of viral causes is now on the to-do list. I actually added some of this data on 6 November 2005, but it was deleted two days later.[3] Mike Serfas 20:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a little theory espoused by one research group and has not been confirmed by anyone else. It is dwarfed in significance by the many other more "mainstream" lines of research in obesity. I will protest the inclusion of AD-36 until several large studies show a clinical relevance of this virus in humans. JFW | T@lk 06:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Weight Gain

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I noticed Weight Gain redirects here. Even when its under for example, the side affects of a corticosteroid. Since weight gain doesn't necessarily lead to obesity, it probably should be changed somehow. Ledmonkey 19:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Non-medical consequences

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Winkwink (talk · contribs) has been populating a new section with "non-medical consequences". I was hoping he could fill us in on primary sources (see WP:RS for details). News articles etc are generally poor sources of information - they may provide some context but are usually inferior to the actual publications - in this case a government report on fuel costs and seating problems. All the medical material is presently sourced to journal articles - we should expect nothing less of the non-medical content. JFW | T@lk 06:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Primary source material has been added in the recent editing. Thanks for your interest in this section. By the way most of my edits (by edit count) to this article have nothing to do with the non-medical consequences of obesity, but are rather directed to improve the article as a whole. Regards. Winkwink 16:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in improving the article. I have only a limited perspective and have been looking some time for editors willing to contribute to the article enough to raise it to featured status. 

    "Improvements" seem largely directed towards demonizing the fat and those advocating on their behalf.

Would you be able to provide primary references for the other statements in the new section? JFW | T@lk 16:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

More primary refencing supplied just now. still looking for more and better references. cheers Winkwink 18:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've doctored them a bit (no pun intended). I hope that in the fullness of time all inline URLs will be replaced with more descriptive full references. Don't forget to adhere to the academic citation standard. I managed to find the PMID code associated with the Dannenberg article, and an URL for the Finkelstein paper (which is online-only). JFW | T@lk 20:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Protected - again

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

15 vandals within 24 hours. I don't care, protection is back on. We should consider permanently protecting this page. The only editors who contribute are longstanding users. JFW | T@lk 19:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep it semi-protected. Too much editor energy goes into reverting vandals instead of improving the article. Nunquam Dormio 20:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What I would like to see

As a person 60 pounds overweight I think this article is well done. Although I wish it was more helpful in a couple areas...

  1. More than the token mention of the mental problems associated with Obesity.
  2. Information that would help identify self-destructive behaviors.

Taking A Stand.

From bbc.co.uk ... "Today, the goverment announced it's newest initiative to combat obesity in the UK - changes have been made to the laws regulating the manufacturing of clothing. From November 15th, all adults over size 16 will require a liscence to buy larger items, and will only be able to do so from specialised outlets ..."

Bloody hell, I know SOMETHING needs to be done, but surely this is a bit far? What does everyone think? And this page are very good

Vandalism Removed

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

BrandonDindorf vandalized the page with an offensive, obscene comment. I removed it within 2 hours and posted a Blatant Vandalism warning on his talk page. -- Likesforests 17:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well done. Some people cannot find any other way to make their mark. JFW | T@lk 21:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you want a medal? Come on, I didn't see the vandalism, but it couldnt have been that bad. Fat people are fat because they make themselves that way, and they deserve our ridicule. fatties.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Obesity/Archive_5&oldid=84963987"